An honest to God rumor that even Scoop may like!!!

[raidermatt]

Scoop- That's all well and good, but how do you decide which resort to go to next time, if you don't compare the experience? You're going to WDW, and you have a choice of Wilderness Lodge, Port Orleans, or the All-Stars, and better yet, all at the same price (hypothetical of course). How do you decide at which one to stay, without comparing your experiences? A random dart toss, or some sort of rotation?

If so, touche, you have me on that one. I just wonder how many people ignore past experiences when deciding which place to return to?


DK-

Those photos would likely have been very different. Different themes, different experiences - different benchmarks and an evolving, expanding Standard.

Sure, but what indication do you have that he would have lowered his standard so significantly, unless it was out of dire financial need? He did live 65 years or so, and lowering his standard didn't seem to be a common practice for him. Yes, he was always looking for something new, but he carried his standard with him throughout. And through perserverance, it worked. Beyond what anyone would have thought he could have done. Why, oh why, after only compromising his standards when he was dragged kicking in protest, would he have changed course later in life? And more importantly, why would that have been the right choice?

His idea of new and exciting wasn't to lower the quality of his films and charge a lower admission price. (Yes, he did the compilations, but only because he needed to in order to fund his more ambitious projects. When the need disappeared, so did the compilations...). Instead, he went into theme parks. Did he then dumb down a park to get at a different market? No, he wanted to build EPCOT (his Epcot).

So yes, things would have been very different, but not in the way you imply they would.

 

[hopemax]

That's all well and good, but how do you decide which resort to go to next time, if you don't compare the experience? You're going to WDW, and you have a choice of Wilderness Lodge, Port Orleans, or the All-Stars, and better yet, all at the same price (hypothetical of course). How do you decide at which one to stay, without comparing your experiences? A random dart toss, or some sort of rotation?

I want to know what Scoop would say to a co-worker who over the water cooler says, "Hey, you've been to WDW, we're going next summer and we're wondering where we should stay All-Stars or the Polynesian (and using Mr. Matt's hypothetical) we can get them at the same price?

Would Scoop really tell the co-worker to go with the All-Stars?

 

[DisneyKidds]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those photos would likely have been very different. Different themes, different experiences - different benchmarks and an evolving, expanding Standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, but what indication do you have that he would have lowered his standard so significantly, unless it was out of dire financial need? He did live 65 years or so, and lowering his standard didn't seem to be a common practice for him.

All I have is speculation, conjecture and hypothesis - all any of us have .

'Lowered his standards so significantly'? Well, he wouldn't have stooped to the AS as we have them, if that is what you are referring to. However, I don't see the 'moderates' as that significant a lowering. As I pointed out, many of the things that some say defile the Disney hotel experience, I don't see as pure 'Disney' traits. The pure 'Disney' stuff - the theme, the depth of detail, the experience, is still there, IMHO. Walt would have made these even better. Maybe he'd only give you the smaller room and exterior corridors to lament, but kept all the other niceties you require for an experience to be Disney - like no parking lot view. I really don't know.

Walt wasn't in a habit of lowering his Standards, but he certainly did know how to set new ones. Are you saying he couldn't have built a 'moderate' hotel worthy of an un-dumbed Walt Standard? IMHO, he could have, would have, done it for hotels, theme parks, who knows what. Keep in mind that Walt was gone before the WDW project became a reality. He didn't have a chance to evolve the theme park/resort standards. Granted, he didn't 'lessen' anything from Disneyland in his WDW plans as WDW represented a chance to correct the mistakes of Disneyland. However, you can't point to a Disneyland standard for hotels- it didn't include them. I also believe that WDW has grown beyond anything even Walt dreamed of and would have provided him a canvas to do so much more than what the Master Plan provided for. Do I have proof? No, but none of that seems a stretch to me. Does it really seem so far fetched to you?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Your thinking would have Walt living as a paper boy in Marceline for the rest of his life. Walt started down a path. The first stepping stone was cartoon ads, which led to animated shorts, which led to animated features, which led to Disneyland, which led to WDW, which...........oops, according to you it would have stopped there. What a rediculous premise.

Another one of my small interjections.

It would not have stopped there, but if you look at each one of those progressions after the cartoon ads, they were innovations. He changed the face of animation forever. He changed, or actually, created, the THEME park concept. (Not amusement park, but theme park). There was nothing innovative about Disney's acquisition of go.com, or ABC or any one of their other aquisitions. They were strictly business/money-making ventures because nothing changed as a result of those decisions. Well, nothing POSITIVE came of those decisions.

I believe that even Walt would have changed the Standard as time progressed.

A standard is a standard. That doesn't change. The products, the immediate RESULT of that standard will change, but the standard cannot. Webster's defines standard as "something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality". Which would mean if the standard changed, it would have to change for a desire for BETTER quality. I don't think that anyone can say that the moderates are BETTER or EQUAL to the Polynesian. Even the Disney company can't say that because of the difference in price!

 

[hopemax]

I know DVC has the Walt's Quotes book, someone else may too.

Go to the one where Walt talks about how his strategy and how it has changed "not a whit." I'd type it in myself, but the book is at my Dad's.

 

[raidermatt]

Does it really seem so far fetched to you?

Barring a true financial necessity, yes, it does. He didn't dumb down anything else unless he had to, so again, I see nothing to indicate he would have altered this basic philosophy with respect to resorts.

If we saw him dumbing down something else to get at a different market segment, then ok, we could make a case he would do the same with resorts.

But that just wasn't his way. When he wanted something new, he didn't lessen something he previously did and put a lower price on it. Instead, he did something else, carrying his standard with him.

So, you are probably right when you say WDW would have fewer resorts if Walt had continued to run it (or if it had continued to be run with his philosophy). It would probably have fewer theme parks as well. But it would have something else. Something we probably haven't even thought of. And it would have been built using the same standard...

But I digress.... if Walt's philosophy were applied to resorts, we would not have moderates. Yes, if he were going to continue to build resorts, he would have innovated with them. They WOULD have been different. Maybe in size, scope, layout, theme, operationally, whatever. But he would never purposely make anything about them less, so that he could charge a different price point.

And THAT, is what the moderates are. An attempt to dumb down certain features to make a price differentiation. The old Disney way dicates that you quit making resorts and move on to something else before you would do this.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

So, what the heck do I keep arguing about you ask?

You don’t know how many times!!!

Well, my problem is that this Standard, this benchmark, is a snapshot of a point in time.

Oh! I see! I think you may be unclear on the concept of STANDARD. And it’s probably my fault. I should have never used that word, and hopefully the rest of this post will show you why I did. Yes, there are some standards that we must adhere to, but overall it is the unique Disney philosophy, which guides those standards. You are right. We must never fall into a mode of thinking that just because Walt did something, it is the only way to go. No, we must be ever vigilant to new concepts, ideas, methods and technology if we are to be leaders in the field and not merely followers.

Had he lived on, this photo album would have been full of so many other photos. You know what? Those photos would likely have been very different. Different themes, different experiences - different benchmarks and an evolving, expanding Standard.

Expanding – YES!! Shrinking – NO!!! And again, perhaps the wrong word. Yes, the standards are the standards. But a standard is only something tangible that one can use as a measure. What we are talking about goes deeper than a certain criteria, scope, square footage, specifications or… well… Standards. It goes to the heart of the philosophy. Which, after all, dictates what those standards are.

Now, given those standards, in conjunction with the underlying philosophy, we can ascertain the direction a certain project should go. Let’s get away from resorts for a moment and take on animation. I think it might be a simpler concept to follow.

OK! You’re the head of the animation department for Walt Disney Studios. You are well versed in all the ‘standards’ that Walt & crew set down on how to make a cartoon. Your storyboards are the best in the business. You utilize the multi-plane process so well the audience thinks they are IN the film and not merely watching it. All the tricks of the trade are used to the best of your ability and you are quite content that your productions are Academy Award contenders!!

But time marches on. And with that passage of time comes new technology. Computers. WHOA!!! That certainly isn’t within the Standards!! Now what do we do!!?? Here’s where your thinking about the word Standard gets in the way. Nowhere is there any mention of a computer in the Standards!! But that concept is covered!! Look to the philosophy!! The philosophy calls for, NO, it DEMANDS that you employ the newest technology, to the best of your abilities, mindful at all times that QUALITY should be enhanced and never diminished!! So you examine the process and see if and how it might fit in with your philosophy. The goal, as always, is to “better” the product or the SHOW.

Innovations can also come that are not necessarily associated with technology. Cheaper ways can be found to produce something. In the late fifties, early sixties innovative techniques were employed to produce TV cartoons. Fast efficient and revolutionary. Instead of the Standard number of frames per second, these TV whizzes did only three frames!!! WOW!! What a savings!! So being the animation guru that you are, do you use this technique? Do you employ it and point to that fact that EVERYONE else is doing it, so it must be OK? NO!! Of course not! You have to apply that technique to the Standard AND the philosophy!! Does it enhance the SHOW? Does it add anything? Does quality remain the same but efficiency increases? Or is it just another attempt to increase profits at the expense of the SHOW?

Now let’s go back to the resorts. What motivation was there to build the “Mods”? Was it to increase the SHOW? Was it just soooo special that it begged to be built? Did the concept ‘improve” in any way, shape or form the Standard?

No. Sadly no. The motivation was strictly dollars and cents. Ei$ner & crew saw they could radically raise prices in their STANDARD hotels so they did it. Now this left a huge market segment with no where to stay (hmmm. Sounds like the LandBaron’s plight). So they lowered their Standards (totally ignoring their philosophy) to capture that market. It worked so well that they decided to do it again. Lower standards = All-Stars. Question: So, where does this fit in with the philosophy? Answer: It doesn’t!!!

Now you remember that part (and only part) of this philosophy calls for SHOW to come before efficiency at all times. To me (and the rest of the reasonable world) they sacrificed SHOW (standards) for efficiency (profits).

WAS the Disney Standard. I believe that even Walt would have changed the Standard as time progressed.

I agree!! I never disagreed. It’s the direction I have a problem with. He most certainly would have had the Standard evolve. Always up. NEVER down. Because the philosophy cannot change!! And that is (or should have been) the guiding force!!

However, even the Ei$ner standard that we see in Dixie Landings kept the essence of what was the Walt Disney Standard

I disagree. Or more to the point I should say that I agree that the Essence was kept, but that isn’t quite enough!! And I point to the 3-frame concept. The writing was the same. The jokes were the same. Mickey Mouse was the same. The color was the same. The story was the same. The music was the same. Everything that made a Disney cartoon was the same!! In other words they kept the ‘essence’ of everything a Walt Disney Standard cartoon should be. So we saved a few bucks in the filming. Big deal!! Besides, everyone else is doing it. And the public, by and large, will accept anything we shove down their throats because, well after all, WE’RE DISNEY!!! Is that the ‘essence’ you’re talking about? Cause it ain’t mine.

However, those things that I prefer about the WL have absolutely nothing to do with Disney. They are not a unique Disney Standard.

No one said they were unique to Disney. But they were incorporated into the standard and became intrinsically tied to it. It was all part of the ‘Disney” package. Or experience. That’s why I used the word Standards rather than philosophy. Simply because the “hotel” stuff was the base line. It was a given. The bare minimum that one could expect from Disney. In order to become a resort Disney had to provide a bed. And early on they decided that a double bed was not good enough for the “experience”. So they made them queen size (you know, always UP, never DOWN). And someone decided that a certain square foot room was the Disney experience. And that indoor corridors would be used. And that themed and unique pools would be built. And that valet service would be included. And that a table service restaurant would be available. And that elevators would be included. And that… and that… and that…

This was the bare bones minimum experience!! In other words you strip away the entire theme and you still have quite a resort on your hands. Now, we hand this minimum STANDARD, this nuts and bolts hotel portion over to the Imagineers and say, theme it!! And then they work their Disney MAGIC!!!

What happens when you strip away the theme form the Mods? Hmmm. Not so hot, is it? Not bad certainly, but nowhere near the Standards set for a Disney resort. In other words for you, it all comes down to theme (and in fairness CMs. But they are a constant throughout the property). If the theme strikes your fancy, nothing else matters. I don’t agree. And I point to my good friend Mr. Kidds for back up. Remember when he said:

Baron, you asked Scoop a very interesting question. If I had to choose between the WL (you can substitute Poly or GF if you like) or POR-Riverside, which would it be? Well, it would be the WL. It would be the WL because as a hotel POR is "less". POR doesn't have interior hallways. The level of amenities is "less". The room is a little smaller. The hotel just isn't as much.

‘nuff said!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

And I point to my good friend Mr. Kidds for back up. Remember when he said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baron, you asked Scoop a very interesting question. If I had to choose between the WL (you can substitute Poly or GF if you like) or POR-Riverside, which would it be? Well, it would be the WL. It would be the WL because as a hotel POR is "less". POR doesn't have interior hallways. The level of amenities is "less". The room is a little smaller. The hotel just isn't as much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘nuff said!!

Well!! To be quoted out of context!! What a joy!!

Just a few comments, as I vowed I was no longer going to discuss hotels, but some of this is related to general standards.

First off, standards change all the time. At one point the Model T was the standard in automobiles, but it certainly isn't today.

Is POR equal to the Poly as a hotel? No. Is it equal as a Disney experience? Sure. A different experience agreed, but still a Disney one. You won't get the POR experience at any other hotel.

They WOULD have been different. Maybe in size, scope, layout, theme, operationally, whatever.

But isn't that exactly what the 'mods' are? I don't agree that the only difference can be 'up' or 'more' as you say. People freak at the idea of a fairly priced $200 a night Disney hotel. Walt would have only gone up? He would have added 'more' and had them be $300. No, all he could have done was churn out more of the same $200 hotel. That's great. They are wonderful. However, it hardly adds an innovative element to the resort portfolio. You see, the 'mods' were innovative. The level of Show, detail, experience, service, etc. found in them had never been found in that hotel category before.

Shrinking, dumb-down, 'less' - you look at it the wrong way. Lets say Walt started his business life as a pizza man. He had the best pizza joint in town. He served the biggest, bestest pizza. 'You've tried all the rest, now try the best' was his line, he invented it. He took pizza to a whole new level. He only served a large, 16 inch, 8 slice pie. Well, boy did pizza take off after his innovations. Then he saw something. One family couldn't finish that large, 16 inch, 8 slice pie. One family didn't feel comfortable eating that much pizza. One family couldn't afford that large, 16 inch, 8 slice pie. So guess what - Walt made a smaller pizza. He offered a 12 inch, 6 slice pie. Sure it was 'less' pizza. It used less dough. It couldn't hold as many toppings. Yes, it even cost less. However, it was still the same wonderfully hot, cheesy, greasy, crisp crust pizza.

I have to go get something to eat now

 

[raidermatt]

A small pizza will be of the same quality if held to the same standard.

With the moderates, inferior ingredients have been used in order to charge a lower price. Sure, the dough and pepperoni is just as good, but the tomato sauce and cheese are of a lower quality.

The moderates, in some cases, offer good themeing. In other cases, its questionable. Its certainly is no better than the Poly/Cont. They are no more innovative, and the service, while still Disney, is not BETTER.

However certain portions were made less for pricing reasons, and ONLY for pricing reasons.

Walt just plain DID NOT DO THIS!

Its really that simple...

 

[hopemax]

Another concern would be are all toppings available on both sizes. It wouldn't be applying the same standard if you had 15 toppings to choose from if you ordered a large pizza, but the smaller pizza you could only choose from sausage, pepperoni or extra cheese.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by raidermatt
The moderates, in some cases, offer good themeing. In other cases, its questionable. Its certainly is no better than the Poly/Cont. They are no more innovative, and the service, while still Disney, is not BETTER.

However certain portions were made less for pricing reasons, and ONLY for pricing reasons.

Walt just plain DID NOT DO THIS!

Its really that simple...

Nowhere have I said that the 'mods' are BETTER than the Poly. I don't agree that they have to be BETTER. The themeing and experience are different, but just as good. Is that not good enough? I know your answer - so don't bother typing it. Does everything have to be BETTER than the thing before? Different, yes. Just as good an experience, yes. But better in every way? No. Can it even be LESS in certain ways? Again, yes - so long as the experience is maintained, which I feel it is at many of the 'mods'. Walt would have only made them even better.

As for the pricing reasons, so long as the experience is maintained I think finding a way to make a Disney experience that is priced less, and is therefore more affordable and available to more people, is a good thing for WDW and the WDW visiting public. I'd be very curious to know what the margins are for operations on the Poly and POR. It always seems that the argument comes back to 'Disney made it less to make a buck' and therefore abandoned the philosophy, or the combination of the standards and the philosophy, or whatever . Did they? I forget which occupant of car 3 made the argument, but it has been said by some that the 'mods' cost no less to build and operate than the 'deluxe'. If that were the case, the margins would be higher on the 'deluxe' than on the 'mods'. Even if the 'mods' make it up in volume, is the bottom line for POR really any higher than for the Poly? Tha sure would speak volumes about the price gouging, make a buck motivation for the 'mods'.

As for what Walt didn't do, sure - he didn't compromise quality to make a buck. Although the 'mod' experience is wonderfully Disney, are there ways that the hotels could have been done a little better, things that could have been done differently in the 'mods' that would have satisfied the Standard you long for, yet provided for a lower priced resort? Sure. Could Walt have accomplished that? You bet your bippy. Would he have? I have no doubt.

It really is that simple.

As for toppings on that pizza, if opening up the World while maintaining the Disney experience means I can only choose from 10, as opposed to 15, toppings I say churn out those small pizzas. Just as with merchandising, which is ok when SUBTLE, resort differences are okay fine. Of course you ask where the line is drawn? How few topping selections can you get to? Well, it gets back to that experience. When you can no longer walk around a place like POR and FEEL like you ARE walking the quiet lanes of the old south, or are meandering the back bayous, you have gone too far.

You can keep your slippery slope comments too, because if nobody ever tested a slope you would get a scant few new and wonderful things. I shudder to think of all the wonderful places I would not have skied had I not tested a few slopes, even a few hairy ones that most people would say you just shouldn't go near. You have to know when to dial it back, but you also have to push limits in life - if not, is it really worth living? Is WDW really any different?

 

[raidermatt]

The themeing and experience are different, but just as good. Is that not good enough?

Please explain how allowing the a view of the parking lot maintains the theme as well as hiding the parking lot from view.

Or perhaps the parking lot IS a part of the Dixie, or Caribbean themes?

Does everything have to be BETTER than the thing before? Different, yes. Just as good an experience, yes. But better in every way? No.

I never said it had to be better in every way. I'm willing to take a "give and take" approach and say that MAYBE you can make portions of the experience less, PROVIDED you make them more in other areas (besides price). But, as you admit, the Mods are equal in some areas, less in others.

It is simply impossible to maintain an overall experience when you decrease portions, and don't improve on the others, or add something else.

If your going to take things away, like room size, balconies, transportation convenience, etc, WHAT ARE YOU ADDING TO MAKE UP FOR THESE TAKEAWAYS? How are you maintaining the experience? For the majority of people, taking these things away makes for a lessor experience. If it didn't, Disney would not charge less.

The moderates are not priced lower because they cost less to make. Pricing is based on demand. If the experience was viewed as equal, demand would be equal, and Disney would happily charge the same price as the deluxes.

The guests know the experience is less, which is why they will not pay as much.

Disney knew the experience would be less, which is why they know they can't charge the same price for Mods and Deluxes.

Regardless of whether you think any of the Mods shortcomings are a part of the experience, the market dictates that they are.

As for toppings on that pizza, if opening up the World while maintaining the Disney experience...

Again, if the experience were maintained, I'd be right there with you.

 

[plutospup]

For the sake of continuos quality improvement "standards" must be fluid/everchanging. Theory being that improving upon or raising the standards will improve the overall show. Those standards, must apply to all entities...resorts, parks, consumers, etc. In Disney's quest for continuos quality improvement, however, have they raised or lowered the standards?

 

[DisneyKidds]

My favorite definition of 'experience', as per Websters......

"something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through"

You see, 'expeience' is not dependant upon a checklist of things as they compare to something else. Perhaps some go to a 'moderate' and, after living through the experience, all they can say is 'boy, the room was too small and that darn parking lot was so ugly'. Personally, I have never come away from the 'mods' with those thoughts. What I encounter is pure Magic, plain and simple. Yes, personally - just as in the definition. Who said the proof is in the pudding? Well, everyone likes a different flavor of pudding. Some like all flavors. The AS aren't pudding. BTW - you are not dealing with an inexperienced pudding eater. There are only a couple Disney resorts we have not stayed at. Why the heck I spend so much time discussing the 'mods' I don't know - we don't even use them any more .

The moderates are not priced lower because they cost less to make. Pricing is based on demand. If the experience was viewed as equal, demand would be equal, and Disney would happily charge the same price as the deluxes.

So, the 'mods' have the same financial structure as the 'deluxe' (construction cost, operating cost, etc.) but are priced lower because the demand is not as strong as for the 'deluxe'? That would imply that the 'mods' perform worse financially than the 'deluxe'. So, in your estimation, why did they build them? This makes no sense. You are saying they could have built more 'deluxe' resorts at the same price and gotten full deluxe price for them? You really believe that they spent the same money on a 'lesser' hotel to artificially create demand for another? You and the Baron are nuts - or maybe you just need to explain how, on Gods green earth, that could make sense.

If your argument was that Disney intentionally threw out all standards and built a 'lesser' hotel because it was cheaper to build and they could realize a higher margin on it - well, that would make sense. But to say that the 'mods' don't cost less, that the reason the price is lower has nothing to do with a standard pricing model that would have you evaluate cost and desired margin in determining price - I just can't fathom that. Your argument should be that by way of spending less money they eroded the experience - and based on the cheaper construction and operating cost, along with eroded experience, they charge less. BTW - just a few short years ago when the 'moderates' were as sold out as any other Disney resorts, wouldn't the price have been higher under your price by demand theory?

I am done talking about hotels vs. Standards and whether they are 'Disney' (where have I heard that before?), but I would like to explore this rather unique business model you believe is employed at the 'mods'. Maybe I have it all wrong and I am not hearing what you are saying correctly, so please correct me if that is the case.

 

[raidermatt]

So, the 'mods' have the same financial structure as the 'deluxe' (construction cost, operating cost, etc.) but are priced lower because the demand is not as strong as for the 'deluxe'? That would imply that the 'mods' perform worse financially than the 'deluxe'.

First, I'm not really sure construction costs are the same. Interior hallways and exterior decks and balconies might be more expensive. Certainly when you don't go to the extra effort to hide things like parking lots, you save some money. Less elaborate pools save money. And when you look at the all of the moderates, on average, their exterior architecture is not as elaborate as the deluxes. I assume more detailed architecture carries a cost.

Operating costs? Maybe the same. If they staff everything (including the front desk) to the same ratios. I have no idea if they do, so for the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume they do.

However, one of the things they did with moderates was make the rooms smaller, so they take up less space. So you can fit more in the same area. Also, substitution exterior walkways for interior hallways and balconies saves space.

So you can charge less and make it up through volume. Certainly that was the goal (as it is with the values).

They kept their costs down because they knew they would not be charging as much for these rooms, because guests wouldn't pay as much.

But to say that the 'mods' don't cost less, that the reason the price is lower has nothing to do with a standard pricing model that would have you evaluate cost and desired margin in determining price - I just can't fathom that.

I never said they don't cost less. You did.

The corners they cut on the experience save money, allowing them to charge less, yet still make money.

Its the same reason why Motel 6 can be as successful as Hilton. They provide a lessor experience for less money.

With Disney, its the same concept as the Values, which you agree with. Yet for some reason, you think the reasoning was different for the Moderates?

You are saying they could have built more 'deluxe' resorts at the same price and gotten full deluxe price for them?

No, I'm not. They wanted to tap a new market segment, those who were willing to pay less for a lessor experience. They probably felt that was a greater financial opportunity than to try to gain more of the deluxe segment.

BTW - just a few short years ago when the 'moderates' were as sold out as any other Disney resorts, wouldn't the price have been higher under your price by demand theory?

While I would love to take credit for the Supply/Demand/Price theory, I'm afraid I can't...

I'm sure the actual prices Disney charged (after discounts) was higher then.



DK, YOU may not care one bit about a balcony, or whether you had a view of the parking lot, or how big your room is, but many others do, and it contributes to their experience.

Why do you think they call them moderates? If they have an equal experience to the deluxes, why would Disney charge less? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Why not just call them deluxes and charge the same, since the experience is equal.

The cost of the resort really is irrelevant once they open the doors. Yes, they have to take in a certain amount to make a profit, but they cannot dictate that price based on their cost. The public dictates the price through their demand.

Look at it another way, if the experience is the same, as you say, and Disney is charging less for the mods than the deluxes, WHY AREN'T MORE PEOPLE STAYING AT THE MODS? Why are they choosing to pay more to stay at a deluxe that offers the same experience? Some people maybe slow, but they catch on. They will spend their money on what has greater value. If the experience is the same, then the mods are the greater value.

Yet, now, when overall demand is suffering, Disney chooses to shut down a 2000+ room moderate, not a deluxe.

 

[raidermatt]

DK, I just want to clarify one point. I am not disputing what YOUR experience is/was at a moderate.

But if all we do is compare our personal experience, it just becomes a case of what I like vs. what you like.

When I say the experience is less, it doesn't mean every person thinks its less. It means that on average, more guests see it as less than see it as being the same.

And since we are discussing how a large company makes its decsions, we have to focus on how large numbers of customers feel. Not just what you and I feel.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds. Usually if someone ignores a point I make I let it go. After all, if we don’t ignore some of the other person’s post we’d go on “quoting” for forever. Instead of the normal (for us at least) 10,000 words we’d be topping 40 to 50,000 words!! And that’s too long even for me!!

HOWEVER!!

Yeah. You just knew there had to be a “however”. Anyway, However, there was a particular argument that I used which I happened to think was simply splendid (if I do say so myself)!!! So, in the hope of eliciting a response of some sort or another, here it is - AGAIN!!

However, those things that I prefer about the WL have absolutely nothing to do with Disney. They are not a unique Disney Standard.

No one said they were unique to Disney. But they were incorporated into the standard and became intrinsically tied to it. It was all part of the ‘Disney” package. Or experience. That’s why I used the word Standards rather than philosophy. Simply because the “hotel” stuff was the base line. It was a given. The bare minimum that one could expect from Disney. In order to become a resort Disney had to provide a bed. And early on they decided that a double bed was not good enough for the “experience”. So they made them queen size (you know, always UP, never DOWN). And someone decided that a certain square foot room was the Disney experience. And that indoor corridors would be used. And that themed and unique pools would be built. And that valet service would be included. And that a table service restaurant would be available. And that elevators would be included. And that… and that… and that…

This was the bare bones minimum experience!! In other words you strip away the entire theme and you still have quite a resort on your hands. Now, we hand this minimum STANDARD, this nuts and bolts hotel portion over to the Imagineers and say, theme it!! And then they work their Disney MAGIC!!!

What happens when you strip away the theme form the Mods? Hmmm. Not so hot, is it? Not bad certainly, but nowhere near the Standards set for a Disney resort. In other words for you, it all comes down to theme (and in fairness CMs. But they are a constant throughout the property). If the theme strikes your fancy, nothing else matters. I don’t agree. And I point to my good friend Mr. Kidds for back up. Remember when he said:

Baron, you asked Scoop a very interesting question. If I had to choose between the WL (you can substitute Poly or GF if you like) or POR-Riverside, which would it be? Well, it would be the WL. It would be the WL because as a hotel POR is "less". POR doesn't have interior hallways. The level of amenities is "less". The room is a little smaller. The hotel just isn't as much.

Now I put that last quote in just to show how much we really agree on. I did not mean to be cute (although it is ) and I didn’t mean to get under your skin (although I did it seems). I really wanted to show you how much of that ‘base-line’ hotel experience goes into the overall Disney experience.

Am I perhaps a little clearer now?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop,

Sorry this is so late, but I did forget about it for a while. Anyway I wrote this on the day you posted but then my kid's homework got in the way and before you know it Mr. Kidds needs straightening out and well... Here it is:

I can be (and in my opinion am) one of the most objective thinkers around here when it comes to Disney and its many business aspects.

I don’t think so Scoop. Unless I’ve read everything you’ve written totally wrong. You, yourself admit that you CHOOSE not to. And that you REFUSE to take a vacation that way! Well, then how in the heck can you be objective about anything Disney!?!?!?!

Remember what you said:

Unfortunately though, that would mean that, while vacationing at WDW, I would have to look at everything through an analytical and objective eye. And I am sure as heck not going to spend my vacation time attempting to objectively compare different resort experiences, ride experiences, or dining experiences.

So that would preclude any reasonable debate, I suppose. And here I thought you were just nuts!!

And then there’s this:

The primary difference is that, while doing this, you still take copious enough mental notes to compare that visit to a previous visit. Frankly, I don't pay that much attention while I'm there.

Well, not only don’t you care to think about, even after your home, but you don’t even notice much when you’re there. I see.

OK Scoop. If you’re still with me, one last bit. I dug a little further and came up with this. And I admit that what follows is a tad ridiculous, but honestly, I don’t think it misses the mark by much!

Our first trip to WDW was a stay in the Herbie/Love Bug building at ASM. It was our first trip and therefore had magical memories attached to it...

Thus, if I compared my experience at ASM with Betsy and I's first trip with my stay next week at the Polynesian, by myself for three nights at a GF seminar, then the Polynesian will lose that comparison every time.

So, if we are to believe you, and I personally see no reason not to as it explains the rather capricious nature of some of your arguments, then we can further that logic by saying that “IF” you had had a streak of unbelievable BAD luck while staying at the Floridian (or name a Deluxe of choice) you would forever (or at least for a good long while) associate that BAD experience to that resort. But “IF” on the other hand while staying at the local Motel 6 something absolutely magical happens throughout the weekend then you’d also associate that WONDERFUL WEEKEND with room 1026 of the Motel 6 chain. Is that it?

And so (bear with me a moment) after you return home and I say that the Floridian is the best resort I’ve ever seen in my life, you might have a tendency to formulate a post that disagrees. In fact you might even go so far as to say that compared with your local Motel 6, where magic happens, the Floridian is a pit!!

You’re right Scoop. Most of our discussions have been pointless. I’ve been trying to look at things logically (and for the most part successfully, I hope). You’ve been talking emotionally! And there's nothing wrong with that!! The Pirate does it all the time! It's just not where I'm coming from!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Matt - Thanks for clarifying.

The corners they cut on the experience save money, allowing them to charge less, yet still make money.

This makes sense and I agree. They cut the expenses associated with building the 'mods' so that they could charge less. Why did they want to do this? Answer 1) could be that they simply wanted to gain market share by tapping into a different income level consumer, or take advantage of consumers who might have been able to afford the deluxes but actually found more value in the Disney experience they got for the lesser price, cut corners and all. Answer 2) could be that by opening another group of hotels at a lower price the Disney experience was available to more people. Good for the people, and good for Disney because it accomplished goal 1). Granted, probably more 1) than 2), but it still works for the company and the consumer.

If they have an equal experience to the deluxes, why would Disney charge less? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Why not just call them deluxes and charge the same, since the experience is equal.

Why, they would charge less because your room is smaller, and you don't have a balcony, and because the resort occupied less land since parking was in closer proximity to the buildings, AND..., AND...all those things that made the hotel cheaper to build, just as you pointed out.

In the end, the only thing that is absolute is the fact that all this is extremely subjective. I'm glad it is - it makes these discussion so much more fun .

Lets look at something you touched on. The idea of people spending their money on what has greater value. If the experience is the same, then the mods are the greater value. You know what - I do know people, other than Scoop, who do choose the 'mods' over the 'deluxe', not because they can't afford the 'deluxe', but because they find the 'mods' to be a better value. After evaluating price and experience they find the 'mods' to be a better value. You ask why they call them the moderates. It is because they are a moderate room, not a moderate experience, and many people realize that.

I'm curious. Does anyone have info on occupancy rates at the various Disney hotels?

Baron - I didn't mean to ignore you, I just didn't know how to spell phoooey (and I still don't know if that is the right spelling ). Actually, all kidding aside, it is an interesting point. However, I believe that view is all a matter of time, place, perspective, and opinion. You may argue that the time and place you first visited a Disney resort gives you a better perspective, and therefore your opinion is more valid, but that is all part of the subjectivity of the thing. No, I can't argue that it was originally decided to incorporate all that is in the Poly into the first Disney hotels. That is a simple matter of fact. However, it is still my opinion that that didn't preclude things from being done differently in the future. Oh, and guess what - if you strip away the themeing from the Poly it ain't all that special either. Yes, it might be a full service hotel, but not one I'd ever visit. You see, it is the themeing, and only the themeing that truely makes the Disney resorts unique - that makes them Disney.

As for that quote taken out of context, it will take a lot more than that to get under my skin . Regarding that quote, it is important to look at what followed it - the reasons that, in my personal opinion, POR is 'less' of a hotel, not less of an experience. I'll say it again - I'm a snob. I like full service hotels. Now that isn't because of anything Disney did or did not do in any particular hotel. I've stayed in more hotels than I can count, all different kinds with all different levels of service, and I've come to prefer the amenities of a full service hotel. Guess what - there are other people who find themselves more comfortable not being in a full service hotel. In their opinion, the 'mods' would be the better hotel. So, it is differing preferences and opinions on what layout and level of service makes a hotel better. However, whichever type of hotel people settle on, it is capable of being a Disney experience when you add that which is unique to Disney - the themeing.

I certainly hope that that is all for my personal opinions on all this hotel stuff. Why do I have this sinking feeling that there will be at least one thing in there that you'll have to quote......... which means I guess I'll see you soon .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well Mr. Kidds, true to form you confused me right out of the box!!

However, I believe that view is all a matter of time, place, perspective, and opinion. You may argue that the time and place you first visited a Disney resort gives you a better perspective, and therefore your opinion is more valid, but that is all part of the subjectivity of the thing.

What does that mean!?!?! I was talking about specific standards that were the bare-bones minimum required within a Disney resort. What does "time" have to do with it? What does “place” have to do with it? What does a first experience have to do with it? And what in the world can possible be subjective about any of the things I was talking about?!?!? A room either has a queen sized bed or it doesn’t! It really is that simple. And the Disney standard, for a Disney resort, called for (demanded) a queen sized bed!

Now, you may argue that this was simply opulence. That the Disney standard, in your opinion, is wrong. That no one requires more than a double bed. But there can be no arguing that this was the standard!! It was!!! And when they “reduced” that standard they ignored their philosophy, which put queen sized beds in the joint in the first place!! Don’t you see that!?!?!

Guess what - there are other people who find themselves more comfortable not being in a full service hotel. In their opinion, the 'mods' would be the better hotel. So, it is differing preferences and opinions on what layout and level of service makes a hotel better. However, whichever type of hotel people settle on, it is capable of being a Disney experience when you add that which is unique to Disney - the themeing.

Guess what. There are people who find themselves comfortable in a neighborhood carnival and NOT in a theme park. They PREFER a 6 Flags roller coaster extravaganza to a Disney themed experience. So, should Disney build it’s next park with them in mind. To hell with theme and give them as many loops and 360 corkscrews as possible? Don’t you get it? There are many that would have preferred that Walt had NOT used that real crystal chandelier and dropped the price of his burger by a nickel instead. Should he have built a theme park for them? No!! Of course not!! That is NOT the Disney PHILOSOPHY!!!

Oh, and guess what - if you strip away the themeing from the Poly it ain't all that special either. Yes, it might be a full service hotel, but not one I'd ever visit. You see, it is the themeing, and only the themeing that truely makes the Disney resorts unique - that makes them Disney.

Well, I know that!!! Of course it’s the theme!! What I’m saying is that stripping away that theme, you still have a nice resort, better than average, which if located in Chicago, St. Louis or Anywhere USA would still be pretty nice. What don’t you like about the bare-bones aspect of it?




PS: it’s phooey - not phoooey